Proposed change to track 2

Other News, Views and topics.

Moderators: DLRA, Rob Carroll, OLDtimer, outbacktrev, Peter Noy

Post Reply
DLRA
Site Admin
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 11:03 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Proposed change to track 2

Post by DLRA »

Peter Hulbert (Timer) has noticed on a recent SCTA timing slip that I sent him that timing at Bonneville actually starts at the 1 mile and they still have a trap at the 2 ¼ mile.
I don't know how long they have been doing this and if this is because they just couldn't get the extra track length for more run up or they consider there are enough slower vehicles that do not require more than a mile of run up.

I do know that in the early days of DLRA there was 3 mile of run up and it was only relatively recently that this was changed to 2 mile (2015). And that we have actually extended our timed track by another mile.

The bikes would love it, and it has a number of other implications as well, it would certainly reduce the time taken to make a run and probably increase the number of runs we could make in a day.
If vehicles could do their run between the 1 and 2 mile and turn out at say the 2 1/2 mile this would be right opposite the current location of the pits. Is this a problem or a benefit?

So, to my mind, this now begs the following questions:
Do we start timing at the 1 mile?
Would this be appropriate just on track 2 or both tracks?
How does this affect records, could you set a record in that first mile?

At the November committee meeting there was plenty of good discussion on this topic, the general consensus was that a 1 mile run up would be more suited to track 2. The existing speed limits of 150 MPH for cars and 175 MPH for motorcycles is to remain.
Given this agreement there are a couple of different configurations that could be used;
Option 1: Timing from the 1 to the 2 mile and 2 to the 3 mile. This would require removal of the 2 ¼ trap and would also mean we would need to find/buy another radio for communication between the beams and the box. (At the moment, the radio is shared by the 2 and 2 ¼ traps)
Option 2: Timing from the 1 to the 2 mile and keep the 2 ¼ trap. This will allow for vehicles that are still accelerating past the 2 to be given permission to go to track 1.
Option 3: Do nothing.
So, there is acceptance in principle for this. It will be discussed further at the next general meeting and a poll will be taken online as to whether entrants think this is a good idea. Meantime Bruce will be on the lookout for another radio.

Who thinks this is a good idea?
Or a bad idea?
Which option would you prefer?
Keep the shiney side up........
DLRA WebMaster / Editor
User avatar
AuotonomousRX
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
Location: Eyre Peninsula SA

Re: Proposed change to track 2

Post by AuotonomousRX »

I like the idea as a way to maximise Track 2.

As our Records are now over a Mile x 2, if we make a change, I like option 1 on Track 2 provided we can afford the equipment..

For me it means Track 2 can

1: Potentially accommodate more runs per hour.
2. As it allows lower speed vehicles quicker turn off time.
3. Does not add traffic to Track 1
4. As Vehicles that need between 1 - 2 mile run up can still use Track 2 and don't need to go to Track 1.
5. If for any reason Track 2 needs to be shortened the 1 - 2 mile Timer is already in place.
6. Not a big thing but, it gives a 1 to 2 to 3 Mile speeds for vehicles that run/need a 3 mile short track, in the same way the higher speed vehicles get 2 to 3 to 4 etc speeds on the Long track.

Cheers.

Pete :)
Still trying to decide if I am a procrastinator

Pete :?
DLRA #866
jpbyron
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:19 am

Re: Proposed change to track 2

Post by jpbyron »

Our two bikes cannot get up to speed in 1 mile. Bonneville 20017 the Rookie track was 1 mile to 2 mile we ran 101mph, then went to the next track timed 2-3mile and ran 107 without thrashing the guts out of gear changes etc as we were on the Rookie track. Maybe the slip Peter got sent was the Rookie track, and thats fine when you have 4 tracks,

So if Option 2 was chosen we would have to run on track 1, adding a 100mph bike to Track 1 will waste time on track 1.


I also question the time wasted between 2-3 mile when vehicles are at full speed as Pete has said, a 70mph bike is in the mile for a minute. That is the worst case senario.
More time can be saved with people being ready to run and organised.

We would vote on option 1 or option 3 if needed.
Option 3 is by far the best for us as we get the 2 1/4 speed and can see what is going on after the run.

Monday this year the DLRA did a record amount of runs, why change anything?

Happy to discuss. JP
Motorcycle Racer Lake Gairdner & Bonneville.

DLRA, SCTA & AMA record borrower
Post Reply